Pages

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney have signed a "marriage pledge" from the National Organization for Marriage. The pledge has five key planks that the signers agree to support. First, the pledge binds the candidate to

"Support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification."

This is nothing new, as most of the Republican candidates have already voiced their support for such a measure.Second, it compells signers to

"Nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning ofthe Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution."

This plank fails to recognize the fallacy of the "original meaning" interpretation of the Constitution; that is, that we cannot truly know what the Founders meant and that the Founders were not gods made mistakes with the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution is an exceptional document, but it also has many items that modern Americans are not proud of, such as the 3/5 clause., and hence why it has been amended 27 times. The question that I would ask of NOM is, "what "original intent" and "Founding Fathers" should we go by?".

Third, the pledge states that candadites must "defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court."

Fourth, the candadites must make sure to

"Establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports ofAmericans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed."

This is not a surprising statement coming from NOM, an organization that has repeatedly been ordered to disclose campaign violations yet has refused to do so based upon this "persecution" complex. Though there may be a few examples of harrassment by gay activists, our movement as a whole is against such tactics and condemns harrassment and violence against those who disagree with us. And I also have another question for NOM. Are they only advocating for this one commission, or would they also advocate for a commission on LGBT people who have been harrassed and threatened by religious extremists because of their sexual orientation?

Fifth, if elected president, the candadite must

"Advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage."

Though the issue of "letting the people vote" in Washington D.C. has been rejected by every federal court that has addressed the issue, NOM would still like the U.S. Congress, a body in which the residents of D.C. have no representation, to order the elected city council of the District to have a referendum. This not only shows a fundamental misunderstanding on NOM's part of how our system of government is structured - aka. representative republic - but is also shows that even if a government has to implement a policy through imperialistic means, that is fine with NOM.

Though Bachmann, Romney, and Santorum signed the pledge, one social conservative candidate declined to sign; Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Maggie Gallagher criticized this move by Pawlenty, saying

“Pawlenty’s communications director Ann Marie Hauser, personally informed me on Tuesday that Tim Pawlenty would not sign NOM’s marriage pledge...like many people, we are scratching our heads wondering why Gov. Pawlenty, who has been a champion for marriage in Minnesota, would not commit to doing so for America.”

1 comment:

I'm surprised Romney signed this. I don't know what to make of him. i don't like that he's Mormon because they were the bank rollers of prop 8. But he was also governor of Mass where it was legal and nothing (negative) changed in the state.

So is he only doing this to win the evangelical vote? Does he truly believe gays don't deserve equal rights? What do you think? Either way he lost my (potential) support. Either he's a true hater or he's willing to sell out to get elected. Both are undeserving of my support and vote.